http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415 Always select Genuine Rant™ Brand. Everything else is just words. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:38:51 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15478 ludwig Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:35:41 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15478 Larry, The problem is there are limits to what people like Saugy can prove--that is in a scientifically verifiable sense--findings that are falsifiable. This is why the authorities in charge of cycling have to pay more attention to circumstantial evidence and doping netwroks if it wants to fight the problem. Re. young people and doping. If doping is tolerated then surely the problem of young people emulating it is serious. However, people like Saugy are the last ones to be held responsible for that problem--look instead to the figures who maintain the omerta (code of silence) and continue to recruit young riders into the high-paying pro cycling game without minimal ehtical constraints. Ultimately, WADA cannot fix cycling. Cycling has to fix cycling. It has to get honest and truthful about the problem--realizing that was it required is a revolution in sports ethics and standards of integrity. Testing alone is not going to do the job--the doping scientists developing new drugs and strategies are too smart and have the monetary advantage.
The problem is there are limits to what people like Saugy can prove–that is in a scientifically verifiable sense–findings that are falsifiable. This is why the authorities in charge of cycling have to pay more attention to circumstantial evidence and doping netwroks if it wants to fight the problem.

Re. young people and doping. If doping is tolerated then surely the problem of young people emulating it is serious. However, people like Saugy are the last ones to be held responsible for that problem–look instead to the figures who maintain the omerta (code of silence) and continue to recruit young riders into the high-paying pro cycling game without minimal ehtical constraints.

Ultimately, WADA cannot fix cycling. Cycling has to fix cycling. It has to get honest and truthful about the problem–realizing that was it required is a revolution in sports ethics and standards of integrity. Testing alone is not going to do the job–the doping scientists developing new drugs and strategies are too smart and have the monetary advantage.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15254 Larry Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:54:31 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15254 Ludwig, I'll give credit where credit is due. BRAVO to Dick Pound for his recent statements about the threat to public health posed by doping in sports. I'm going to look at what he said more carefully later, he may be guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but he's right: the true danger of doping goes well beyond fairness in sports and the tens of thousands who can make a living as a professional athlete. The danger extends to the millions of young people who emulate professional athletes and who aspire to become professional athletes. If they get the message that they have to dope to succeed in sport, and if they have access to the dope, that's a public health disaster. Unfortunately, that message is out there, and so is the dope. Put two and two together - the result seems obvious to me. ... This is one reason why I get so outraged by statements by the likes of Saugy in Lausanne, that everyone in cycling is doping. He damn well better be right, and he damn well better have the facts to back him up, and he damn well better provide us with those facts, and he damn well better tell us what to do about this. Because if all he does is drop a bomb that everyone in cycling is doping, and he then just walks away from the press conference without further explanation, and there's no follow up, then all he's done is to add to the message that you need to dope if you want to succeed in athletics. ... Ludwig, that "omerta" you speak of? They can make a living off the professional athletes. But they can make a killing (figuratively, and perhaps literally) by extending their market to ordinary people like you, me, and our children. I'm convinced that this is going on, though I'll admit I'm a little short on proof. ... Dick Pound is not all bad. And I gotta admit, when the old "quotemeister" is on the side of right and truth, he can spin some great quotes and garner a lot of attention. My opinion of Pound remains low, but not as low as it was yesterday. Today, he's "mon ami". …
This is one reason why I get so outraged by statements by the likes of Saugy in Lausanne, that everyone in cycling is doping. He damn well better be right, and he damn well better have the facts to back him up, and he damn well better provide us with those facts, and he damn well better tell us what to do about this. Because if all he does is drop a bomb that everyone in cycling is doping, and he then just walks away from the press conference without further explanation, and there’s no follow up, then all he’s done is to add to the message that you need to dope if you want to succeed in athletics.
…
Ludwig, that “omerta” you speak of? They can make a living off the professional athletes. But they can make a killing (figuratively, and perhaps literally) by extending their market to ordinary people like you, me, and our children. I’m convinced that this is going on, though I’ll admit I’m a little short on proof.
…
Dick Pound is not all bad. And I gotta admit, when the old “quotemeister” is on the side of right and truth, he can spin some great quotes and garner a lot of attention. My opinion of Pound remains low, but not as low as it was yesterday. Today, he’s “mon ami”.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15253 Larry Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:59:22 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15253 Jean C, that's one hell of a story! Yes, there's truth to the idea that FL saved international cycling from the pit it fell into after Festina and the doping scandals of 1998. The remainder of the story lacks a certain logic, which is true for most "conspiracy theories." ... First, if UCI was looking for a hero to save cycling, would they REALLY have chosen a hero they knew was doping? That doesn't make logical sense. It means that their hero could get caught, same way that the riders in 1998 were caught, with the result that cycling sinks even lower into the muck. ... Second, if UCI needed a hero, LA was a dubious candidate. Sure, if LA won, they'd have the whole "rider triumphs over cancer" story, which would be a terrific story. But no one thought in 1999 that LA had a prayer of winning the TdF. He rode on a third rate team, and I'm not sure he'd even completed a TdF prior to that time. If UCI had decided to "conspire" to create a heroic winner of the TdF, they'd have tpo pick someone with a realistic chance of WINNING, and that would have excluded LA. ... Third, if your conspiracy theory is right, then once LA emerges as the savior of cycling, it would become more important than ever for UCI to continue its cover-up. That's the nature of a conspiracy, you can never admit to it. But your conspiracy theory includes a part where UCI decides it no longer needs LA, and exposes LA as a doper. If the UCI admitted to a conspiracy, then not only would it threaten to undo all the "good" it did with the conspiracy, it would also expose its own involvement in the conspiracy. So not only would LA be exposed as a cheater, so would UCI. There's no way that UCI would behave in this way, it makes no logical sense. ... By the way, just to make it clear, I see no credible evidence that LA doped. Other than the fact that he was a professional bike rider, and for the past 30 years at least, all riders ride under suspicion. …
First, if UCI was looking for a hero to save cycling, would they REALLY have chosen a hero they knew was doping? That doesn’t make logical sense. It means that their hero could get caught, same way that the riders in 1998 were caught, with the result that cycling sinks even lower into the muck.
…
Second, if UCI needed a hero, LA was a dubious candidate. Sure, if LA won, they’d have the whole “rider triumphs over cancer” story, which would be a terrific story. But no one thought in 1999 that LA had a prayer of winning the TdF. He rode on a third rate team, and I’m not sure he’d even completed a TdF prior to that time. If UCI had decided to “conspire” to create a heroic winner of the TdF, they’d have tpo pick someone with a realistic chance of WINNING, and that would have excluded LA.
…
Third, if your conspiracy theory is right, then once LA emerges as the savior of cycling, it would become more important than ever for UCI to continue its cover-up. That’s the nature of a conspiracy, you can never admit to it. But your conspiracy theory includes a part where UCI decides it no longer needs LA, and exposes LA as a doper. If the UCI admitted to a conspiracy, then not only would it threaten to undo all the “good” it did with the conspiracy, it would also expose its own involvement in the conspiracy. So not only would LA be exposed as a cheater, so would UCI. There’s no way that UCI would behave in this way, it makes no logical sense.
…
By the way, just to make it clear, I see no credible evidence that LA doped. Other than the fact that he was a professional bike rider, and for the past 30 years at least, all riders ride under suspicion.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15240 Jean C Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:35:34 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15240 Larry, I find this post on cyclingforum: http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3625770&postcount=77 ----------------- And yes, the UCI/ASO do know who dopes and they allow certain riders to get away with it, while other riders are "caught" and then cast aside. I have it on bluechip authority that the UCI knew full well that Armstrong for example was doping and the UCI turned a blind eye to him and his team. The reason he was allowed dope? In Armstrong's case, he got his "pass to dope" in 1995 in Limoges. 1995 in Limoges? Sure he wasn't exactly lighting the world up back then. But an unfortunate tragedy and it's immediate aftermath gave Armstrong a bargaining chip. TDF 1995 : Fabio Casartelli of the Motorola team dies while descending a mountain in the Pyrennees on Col De Portet D'Aspet His death, naturally, was covered by the world media. The stage immediately after Casartelli died, to Pau, was "processional". Indurain/Jalabert/Riis - the top riders - went to the ASO/TDF and said that the stage would be solemn. No racing, just riding quietly in memory of Fabio. Again there was worldwide coverage of that processional stage. TV and radio stations which would never cover live TDF stages, covered that stage to Pau. Motorola, as a team with Armstrong as their leader, were allowed by Indurain/Jalabert/Riis to cross the line of that stage while the rest of the peloton held back. The result that day was neutralised. A couple of days later, the stages were back in competitive mode, Armstrong managed to get away and won a stage in to Limoges. If you look at the final 500 metres of that stage, you see Armstrong gesturing up to the sky, on the pretext of offering this win in the memory of his fallen tea mate, Fabio Casartelli. Again, positive (excuse the pun) TV/Media coverage - what a great guy to remember his team mate, etc. Roll the film on to 1998 - Festina. Savage stuff. Soigneur for Festina is arrested after his car is stopped on it's way to Dublin stuffed with dope. World wide media coverage ensues. Festina manager (Roussel) is arrested. Casino rider, Rudolfo Massi, who waltzed up the mountains destroying Virenque/Pantani gets busted for doping and is publicly stripped of his King of the Mountains jersey. Worldwide coverage. Festina, the entire team, is thrown off the TDF. Worldwide coverage of their departure with Richard Virenque ensues. TVM team gets busted for doping at TDF and is thrown off the Tour. World wide coverage. ONCE, the No 1 cycling team in the world walks away from the TDF. Worldwide coverage. Jan Riis and Luc LeBlance are filmed standing toe to toe pointing and shouting at each other over the how best to demonstrate riders annoyance at all this adverse media coverage at the TDF. Professional cycling on it's knees. UCI is under seige. Aug-Dec 1998 carries nothing but accusation and counter accusation and court appearances instigated by the French authorities. Zulle/Virenque/Bourchard and Dufaux - world champions/grand champions are all busted for doping. Rumour and counter rumour ensue. Wholesale migration of riders living in the south of France (Nice) to places like Girona and Switzerland because the French police have started to take an active interest in the nest of doping called Cycling. Vuelta September 1998 : superb race, the final result in the balance practically to the final stage. Abraham Olano wins.........but who finishes 4th after returning from cancer? Armstrong. A good news story. A great news story. In all this fallout, in all this rumour/counter rumour, the UCI at that point decided that Armstrong was to be the "good news story" of a sport that was on it's knees. Man gets up of deathbed and manages to finish 4th in the Vuelta. Positive, worldwide media coverage for a sport that was literally in the shit. That's when the Faustian pact was sealed. Certain UCI members at that time, have admitted this (off the record, naturally). When Armstrong's usefulness as a rider/publicist was deemed finished, the UCI did what it always does, it allowed the real truth to come out. The UCI leaked the rider identity of the 6 positives from the 1999 TDF. The UCI know and the UCI has and will tolerate doping for a variety of reasons. ------------ end of post I find this post on cyclingforum:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showpost.php?p=3625770&postcount=77
—————–
And yes, the UCI/ASO do know who dopes and they allow certain riders to get away with it, while other riders are “caught” and then cast aside.

I have it on bluechip authority that the UCI knew full well that Armstrong for example was doping and the UCI turned a blind eye to him and his team.
The reason he was allowed dope?

In Armstrong’s case, he got his “pass to dope” in 1995 in Limoges.
1995 in Limoges?
Sure he wasn’t exactly lighting the world up back then.
But an unfortunate tragedy and it’s immediate aftermath gave Armstrong a bargaining chip.

TDF 1995 : Fabio Casartelli of the Motorola team dies while descending a mountain in the Pyrennees on Col De Portet D’Aspet
His death, naturally, was covered by the world media.

The stage immediately after Casartelli died, to Pau, was “processional”.
Indurain/Jalabert/Riis – the top riders – went to the ASO/TDF and said that the stage would be solemn. No racing, just riding quietly in memory of Fabio.
Again there was worldwide coverage of that processional stage.
TV and radio stations which would never cover live TDF stages, covered that stage to Pau.
Motorola, as a team with Armstrong as their leader, were allowed by Indurain/Jalabert/Riis to cross the line of that stage while the rest of the peloton held back.
The result that day was neutralised.

A couple of days later, the stages were back in competitive mode, Armstrong managed to get away and won a stage in to Limoges.
If you look at the final 500 metres of that stage, you see Armstrong gesturing up to the sky, on the pretext of offering this win in the memory of his fallen tea mate, Fabio Casartelli.
Again, positive (excuse the pun) TV/Media coverage – what a great guy to remember his team mate, etc.

Roll the film on to 1998 – Festina.
Savage stuff. Soigneur for Festina is arrested after his car is stopped on it’s way to Dublin stuffed with dope.
World wide media coverage ensues.
Festina manager (Roussel) is arrested.
Casino rider, Rudolfo Massi, who waltzed up the mountains destroying Virenque/Pantani gets busted for doping and is publicly stripped of his King of the Mountains jersey. Worldwide coverage.
Festina, the entire team, is thrown off the TDF. Worldwide coverage of their departure with Richard Virenque ensues.
TVM team gets busted for doping at TDF and is thrown off the Tour. World wide coverage.
ONCE, the No 1 cycling team in the world walks away from the TDF. Worldwide coverage.
Jan Riis and Luc LeBlance are filmed standing toe to toe pointing and shouting at each other over the how best to demonstrate riders annoyance at all this adverse media coverage at the TDF.

Professional cycling on it’s knees. UCI is under seige.

Aug-Dec 1998 carries nothing but accusation and counter accusation and court appearances instigated by the French authorities.
Zulle/Virenque/Bourchard and Dufaux – world champions/grand champions are all busted for doping.
Rumour and counter rumour ensue.
Wholesale migration of riders living in the south of France (Nice) to places like Girona and Switzerland because the French police have started to take an active interest in the nest of doping called Cycling.

Vuelta September 1998 : superb race, the final result in the balance practically to the final stage.
Abraham Olano wins………but who finishes 4th after returning from cancer?
Armstrong.
A good news story. A great news story.
In all this fallout, in all this rumour/counter rumour, the UCI at that point decided that Armstrong was to be the “good news story” of a sport that was on it’s knees.
Man gets up of deathbed and manages to finish 4th in the Vuelta.
Positive, worldwide media coverage for a sport that was literally in the shit.
That’s when the Faustian pact was sealed.
Certain UCI members at that time, have admitted this (off the record, naturally).

When Armstrong’s usefulness as a rider/publicist was deemed finished, the UCI did what it always does, it allowed the real truth to come out.
The UCI leaked the rider identity of the 6 positives from the 1999 TDF.

The UCI know and the UCI has and will tolerate doping for a variety of reasons.

———— end of post]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15237 Jean C Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:41:11 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15237 Larry, Even if I read rapidly your post, it seems that you are unaware or a lack of knowledge of what happened in 90'. Just some points: -- "they all dope" coming out with EPO around 1997 and especially after Festina, when people learnt more about the big advantage provided by EPO. -- UCI must have cleaned cycling after Festina, UCI preferred to say it was a unique case, the rest of peloton was clean! Only France reacted by his federation and by law (criminalization of doping suppliers) -- So a peloton at 2 speeds was re-born, the first time was at the beginning of EPO when just few teams were using it and were destroying the field! -- until very recently UCI stated that there were no problem of doping in cycling the most tested sport, only some black ships. -- There is a lot of drugs in our cities, are all of them caught? There is a lot of thieves and criminal, are they all caught ? A lot (all ?) of drivers drive too rapidly have they all receive a fine ? Even if I read rapidly your post, it seems that you are unaware or a lack of knowledge of what happened in 90′. Just some points:
– “they all dope” coming out with EPO around 1997 and especially after Festina, when people learnt more about the big advantage provided by EPO.
– UCI must have cleaned cycling after Festina, UCI preferred to say it was a unique case, the rest of peloton was clean! Only France reacted by his federation and by law (criminalization of doping suppliers)
– So a peloton at 2 speeds was re-born, the first time was at the beginning of EPO when just few teams were using it and were destroying the field!
– until very recently UCI stated that there were no problem of doping in cycling the most tested sport, only some black ships.
–
There is a lot of drugs in our cities, are all of them caught? There is a lot of thieves and criminal, are they all caught ? A lot (all ?) of drivers drive too rapidly have they all receive a fine ?]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15235 Larry Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:52:25 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15235 Ludwig, I'm sorry I have not been able to reply. I'm very careful when I reply to you, because you're smart and you disagree with me. If I'm not careful with my facts, I know you'll catch me, and if my reasoning is off, I'll know you'll nail me for it. These are compliments, by the way, but I just don't casually dash off replies to you. Sometimes it takes more time than I have. ... The articles you cite are interesting and I'll need to read them more carefully. I'll admit I'm better on current news than I am about the 2002-03 time period. I don't know how easy it will be to show that WADA has not been helpful until recently in terms of bringing the biological passport program to the forefront. I have quotes from Lemond saying that the Slipstream types of programs may be just a clever way by the team to avoid doping controls, and while that was not an accurate statement on Lemond's part, I can't blame WADA for things said by Lemond. ... UCI and Anne Gripper in particular have been instrumental in pushing the idea of the biological passport. Dick Pound actually had some nice words for McQuaid as a result. If we can get these agencies to stop fighting with each other and cooperate, we're all going to be better off. I'm not going to try to figure out who started the war of words between UCI and WADA. ... My main point here has been, if you believe the ADA line that nearly all cyclists are doping, then there's a lot of blame to go around and WADA deserves its share. If you're determined to blame, then the agency that is solely devoted to fighting doping has to get some of the blame. Again, I'd be more sympathetic to the idea that WADA's done all it can and the blame lies elsewhere, if I could figure out what WADA wanted to do differently but was unable to do. If WADA can look at the drug tests for the 2007 TdF, determine that 150 riders doped but that they could only prove cases against 4 of them, don't you want to know what's up with that? Are there changes that need to be made to the WADA code or the ISL, to actually allow WADA to prosecute those 150 dopers? ... One frustrating aspect of WADA is that they don't explain to us what they know. If Saugy had come forward and said, here's how we KNOW that 47 riders were doing EPO or blood transfusions ... and here's what we need to throw the book at these guys ... man, would that ever be refreshing. It doesn't help us when WADA levels these vague and overgeneral kinds of accusations. If they know what they're talking about, then they should explain it. And if they're just talking through their hat ... well, you know what I'd recommend in that case! ... I get what you're saying about the omerta - if you have time you may want to pick up the link to the NY Times article today about Team Slipstream - some good stuff there about the omerta. ... No time to write more, sorry. Our dialog will continue. Thanks for posting here. I enjoy our give-and-take. …
The articles you cite are interesting and I’ll need to read them more carefully. I’ll admit I’m better on current news than I am about the 2002-03 time period. I don’t know how easy it will be to show that WADA has not been helpful until recently in terms of bringing the biological passport program to the forefront. I have quotes from Lemond saying that the Slipstream types of programs may be just a clever way by the team to avoid doping controls, and while that was not an accurate statement on Lemond’s part, I can’t blame WADA for things said by Lemond.
…
UCI and Anne Gripper in particular have been instrumental in pushing the idea of the biological passport. Dick Pound actually had some nice words for McQuaid as a result. If we can get these agencies to stop fighting with each other and cooperate, we’re all going to be better off. I’m not going to try to figure out who started the war of words between UCI and WADA.
…
My main point here has been, if you believe the ADA line that nearly all cyclists are doping, then there’s a lot of blame to go around and WADA deserves its share. If you’re determined to blame, then the agency that is solely devoted to fighting doping has to get some of the blame. Again, I’d be more sympathetic to the idea that WADA’s done all it can and the blame lies elsewhere, if I could figure out what WADA wanted to do differently but was unable to do. If WADA can look at the drug tests for the 2007 TdF, determine that 150 riders doped but that they could only prove cases against 4 of them, don’t you want to know what’s up with that? Are there changes that need to be made to the WADA code or the ISL, to actually allow WADA to prosecute those 150 dopers?
…
One frustrating aspect of WADA is that they don’t explain to us what they know. If Saugy had come forward and said, here’s how we KNOW that 47 riders were doing EPO or blood transfusions … and here’s what we need to throw the book at these guys … man, would that ever be refreshing. It doesn’t help us when WADA levels these vague and overgeneral kinds of accusations. If they know what they’re talking about, then they should explain it. And if they’re just talking through their hat … well, you know what I’d recommend in that case!
…
I get what you’re saying about the omerta – if you have time you may want to pick up the link to the NY Times article today about Team Slipstream – some good stuff there about the omerta.
…
No time to write more, sorry. Our dialog will continue. Thanks for posting here. I enjoy our give-and-take.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15206 ludwig Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:20:05 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15206 Larry, I don't think you're being fair at all to WADA. All my essential points stand--1) WADA needs the cooperation of the particular sport in order to do anything, 2) such cooperation was not forthcoming until very recently and is still incomplete 3) unlike the UCI and the omerta, WADA was not responsible for covering up the doping problem. The last 10 years of cycling are a history of continual conflict and disagreements over whether even to sign on to the WADA code, and then how to test for cheats. To say that the WADA had the leverage and the power to catch the cheaters during that time is not accurate in the least. But make no mistake about this--Pound was always vocal about cycling's refusal to enforce its own rules. All you have to do is google cyclingnews, dick pound, doping, and you will get dozens of examples. While the Verbruggens of cycling attacked whistleblowers and assured the public the sport was clean, Pound was speaking truth to power. You may say that criticizing cycling as adopting dishonest postures is counterproductive--I think recognizing and owning up to cycling's past was always essential for its future. As we have seen, the public refused to accept and understand the prevalance of the doping culture until athletes started admitting and talking about it--until then they continued to follow the propaganda and what they wanted to believe. As Lemond has told us, cycling is paying the price for its lies. Finally, to argue that the compromises recently adopted (the blood passports etc) are without the influence of WADA is disingenuous. Ultimately WADA can't force cycling to do anything--the power brokers in cycling have to make the decisions. A few links for you to peruse http://www.bikebiz.com/news/23731/UCI-says-world-anti-doping-org-has-it-in-for-cycling-suspends-links-to-WADA http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=3039 http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13562.0.html http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/07/26/cycling.mcquaid.reut/index.html
I don’t think you’re being fair at all to WADA. All my essential points stand–1) WADA needs the cooperation of the particular sport in order to do anything, 2) such cooperation was not forthcoming until very recently and is still incomplete 3) unlike the UCI and the omerta, WADA was not responsible for covering up the doping problem. The last 10 years of cycling are a history of continual conflict and disagreements over whether even to sign on to the WADA code, and then how to test for cheats. To say that the WADA had the leverage and the power to catch the cheaters during that time is not accurate in the least.

But make no mistake about this–Pound was always vocal about cycling’s refusal to enforce its own rules. All you have to do is google cyclingnews, dick pound, doping, and you will get dozens of examples. While the Verbruggens of cycling attacked whistleblowers and assured the public the sport was clean, Pound was speaking truth to power. You may say that criticizing cycling as adopting dishonest postures is counterproductive–I think recognizing and owning up to cycling’s past was always essential for its future. As we have seen, the public refused to accept and understand the prevalance of the doping culture until athletes started admitting and talking about it–until then they continued to follow the propaganda and what they wanted to believe. As Lemond has told us, cycling is paying the price for its lies.

Finally, to argue that the compromises recently adopted (the blood passports etc) are without the influence of WADA is disingenuous. Ultimately WADA can’t force cycling to do anything–the power brokers in cycling have to make the decisions.

A few links for you to peruse
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/23731/UCI-says-world-anti-doping-org-has-it-in-for-cycling-suspends-links-to-WADA
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=3039
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13562.0.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/07/26/cycling.mcquaid.reut/index.html]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15126 Larry Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:13:08 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15126 Ludwig - ... Thanks for your cite to the Anne Gripper interview. That's a terrific interview, but there's nothing specific there about how UCI did something different regarding drug busts during the 2007 TdF. Or if there is, I didn't see it. ... On Pound's integrity and honor ... we can let Pound's record speak for itself. ... You ask what WADA would need to do the job I want them to do? The first thing I would want is for WADA to either say (1) we're all doing the best job we can to catch the dopers, this job is going to take a while to accomplish, please be patient, etc., or (2) this job is NOT being done as well as it could be done, and here are the specific things required for this job to be done the way it should be done: [insert SPECIFIC recommendations here]. I understand that WADA needs the cooperation of other agencies to do its job, and if there's blame to be assigned here, then these agencies should share the blame with WADA and the ADAs. But WADA's sole purpose is to stamp out doping in sports. WADA is in charge here. They're supposed to be the experts. They should lead the way. ... And by "lead the way" I don't mean that WADA should be the leading source of sound bites, or vague accusations, or finger pointing. I'm talking about specific reforms. ... Two examples: we have the excellent critique of UCI contained in the Rabobank report on the Rasmussen affair. That's a positive development in the battle against doping: it contains specific ways where UCI can clean up its act. Did WADA provide us with this information? No. The information came from a team sponsor - someone you've tended to group with the doping "omerta". Why didn't WADA provide us with this critique years ago? ... Example two: we have the new idea of the doping passport. Who implemented this idea? CSC and Team Slipstream. Who has brought this idea front and center to the cycling world? I think the primary credit belongs to Anne Gripper at UCI. Again, it's been members of groups that you might have grouped in your "omerta" that are leading the way. What role did WADA play here? None that I've been able to determine. …
Thanks for your cite to the Anne Gripper interview. That’s a terrific interview, but there’s nothing specific there about how UCI did something different regarding drug busts during the 2007 TdF. Or if there is, I didn’t see it.
…
On Pound’s integrity and honor … we can let Pound’s record speak for itself.
…
You ask what WADA would need to do the job I want them to do? The first thing I would want is for WADA to either say (1) we’re all doing the best job we can to catch the dopers, this job is going to take a while to accomplish, please be patient, etc., or (2) this job is NOT being done as well as it could be done, and here are the specific things required for this job to be done the way it should be done: [insert SPECIFIC recommendations here]. I understand that WADA needs the cooperation of other agencies to do its job, and if there’s blame to be assigned here, then these agencies should share the blame with WADA and the ADAs. But WADA’s sole purpose is to stamp out doping in sports. WADA is in charge here. They’re supposed to be the experts. They should lead the way.
…
And by “lead the way” I don’t mean that WADA should be the leading source of sound bites, or vague accusations, or finger pointing. I’m talking about specific reforms.
…
Two examples: we have the excellent critique of UCI contained in the Rabobank report on the Rasmussen affair. That’s a positive development in the battle against doping: it contains specific ways where UCI can clean up its act. Did WADA provide us with this information? No. The information came from a team sponsor – someone you’ve tended to group with the doping “omerta”. Why didn’t WADA provide us with this critique years ago?
…
Example two: we have the new idea of the doping passport. Who implemented this idea? CSC and Team Slipstream. Who has brought this idea front and center to the cycling world? I think the primary credit belongs to Anne Gripper at UCI. Again, it’s been members of groups that you might have grouped in your “omerta” that are leading the way. What role did WADA play here? None that I’ve been able to determine.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15124 ludwig Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:33:23 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15124 Larry, For changes at the UCI that effected the 2007 Tour, see this interview for example. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/The_Big_Interview_Anne_Gripper_article_154405.html I believe one of the keys to busting the likes of Vino and Kash was the implementation of blood profiles, which makes it easier to target suspected dopers.
For changes at the UCI that effected the 2007 Tour, see this interview for example.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/The_Big_Interview_Anne_Gripper_article_154405.html

I believe one of the keys to busting the likes of Vino and Kash was the implementation of blood profiles, which makes it easier to target suspected dopers.]]> http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15123 ludwig Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:27:22 +0000 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=415#comment-15123 Larry, Pound has been speaking out about cycling's drug culture for years, and has recieved the same sort of abuse from omerta supporters as he does from the current crop of Landis supporters. Do you remember when Lance Armstrong published an op-ed saying that anyone who felt a large number of cyclists were doping shouldn't be leading WADA? Reality is cycling (and yes, Armstrong, Verbrueggen, and the rest) has had a hostile relationship with Pound for years. You might argue someone other than Pound would have done the job better, but Pound still deserves admiration for speaking truth to power. Unlike most players in this mess, Pound has retained his integrity and his honor. I'm not familiar with the exact details of exactly what is delegated to what, but WADA alone is not responsible for testing. They have to coordinate with national federations, even organizers, and of course the UCI. And as you well know, the science to beat the tests remains stronger and better funded than the tests themselves. I think cycling needs to clean up its own house--it is the figures in cycling (ie managers, doctors, riders), not WADA, who are responsible for covering up doping and maintaining the omerta line. Which is what makes your position so puzzling--under what circumstances do you think it would be possible for WADA to do the job you want them to do? You want WADA to be able to test for all illegal substances and eliminate doping.....without the cooperation of cycling? How are they supposed to catch dopers if the teams themselves have elaborate and expensive plans, backed by millions of sponsor dollars, to avoid said testing? There's plenty of blame to go around, but I place considerable blame on the UCI because UCI leaders have consistently lied to the public and covered up the doping mess. They are a convienient target because they have essentially represented the doctors and the DSes--the real profiteers of the doping culture. Make no mistake about it--until reforms happen that hold teams responsible for doping offenses, nothing substantial is going to change.
Pound has been speaking out about cycling’s drug culture for years, and has recieved the same sort of abuse from omerta supporters as he does from the current crop of Landis supporters. Do you remember when Lance Armstrong published an op-ed saying that anyone who felt a large number of cyclists were doping shouldn’t be leading WADA? Reality is cycling (and yes, Armstrong, Verbrueggen, and the rest) has had a hostile relationship with Pound for years. You might argue someone other than Pound would have done the job better, but Pound still deserves admiration for speaking truth to power. Unlike most players in this mess, Pound has retained his integrity and his honor.

I’m not familiar with the exact details of exactly what is delegated to what, but WADA alone is not responsible for testing. They have to coordinate with national federations, even organizers, and of course the UCI. And as you well know, the science to beat the tests remains stronger and better funded than the tests themselves.

I think cycling needs to clean up its own house–it is the figures in cycling (ie managers, doctors, riders), not WADA, who are responsible for covering up doping and maintaining the omerta line. Which is what makes your position so puzzling–under what circumstances do you think it would be possible for WADA to do the job you want them to do? You want WADA to be able to test for all illegal substances and eliminate doping…..without the cooperation of cycling? How are they supposed to catch dopers if the teams themselves have elaborate and expensive plans, backed by millions of sponsor dollars, to avoid said testing?

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but I place considerable blame on the UCI because UCI leaders have consistently lied to the public and covered up the doping mess. They are a convienient target because they have essentially represented the doctors and the DSes–the real profiteers of the doping culture.

Make no mistake about it–until reforms happen that hold teams responsible for doping offenses, nothing substantial is going to change.]]>